Re: Man up!

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, pcg wrote:
> Well, I was reaching for a cheap joke, but I think you can take my 
> meaning. We have no inherent right to board a plane in any manner other 
> than the one that's available to us. Just like we have no right to drive 
> a vehicle in any way other than the ones that are available to us.

Well, again, as I pointed out, you *do* have certain rights.  Even the 
laws that deny you those rights may be trumped by higher laws.  (And by 
"higher laws", I'm thinking of the Constitution, etc., not God.)

> It seems odd to me that some people are treating this like our rights 
> are somehow being violated. Airplanes present a unique and particularly 
> potent opportunity for terrorism, so certain measures are in place to 
> reduce that risk.

No, certain measures are in place to *pretend* to reduce that risk.

*Actual* risk-reduction would require profiling, etc.  But apparently the 
right of certain minorities or whatever to not be asked extra questions 
trumps *everyone's* right to privacy and a modicum of dignity.

> If we don't like it, we don't have to fly.

That's easy for *you* to say, as your livelihood -- your contribution to 
the economy, etc. -- doesn't depend on flying.

I haven't gone on a junket in at least a year, maybe two, but I rather 
doubt I'd go on one *now*.  And I feel for those who *do*.

>> And of course, if the government decided to set up road blocks and pull 
>> over random drivers
>
> Isn't that what the border patrol does?

Quite so.  Of course, my sentence didn't stop there, did it?

>> the option of being exposed to potentially harmful radiation
>
> This argument is particularly odd, given the ubiquity of cell phones in 
> our culture.

Do cell phones use X-rays?  Do doctors tell cancer patients to avoid cell 
phones even when they are at the dentist's office?  Etc., etc.

>> or having their private parts fondled
>
> I highly doubt that anyone's being "fondled." Do you consider a police 
> pat-down a fondling? What about a doctor's physical?
>
>> by minimum-wage hacks who have no
>> medical or police training,
>
> What does medical or police training have to do with anything?

You tell me: you're the one who suggested that what these minimum-wage 
hacks were doing was equivalent to police and medical work.

As a matter of fact, yes, I *do* consider police patdowns a form of 
fondling -- they are, at any rate, intrusive etc. -- but that's precisely 
why the police are not allowed to perform them without "probable cause".

And doctors, of course, generally need your *permission* first.  So 
there's obviously no comparison *there*.

> I imagine TSA agents receive training for their jobs as well . . .

Nothing like what the cops receive, from what I hear.

>> you'd be fine with that too, right?
>
> If we developed an ongoing problem with people loading cars up with 
> explosives and driving into shopping centers or whatever, then, yeah, 
> I'd be okay with random checkpoints. Hey, that sounds kind of like what 
> we're doing in Iraq, huh?

Actually, no, it isn't.  The American military is explicitly *forbidden* 
to use these techniques in the territories that you are currently 
occupying, for fear of violating people's dignity and inflaming 
anti-American sentiment in the populace over there.  But apparently your 
government is not afraid of *its own* people.  Well, maybe it should be.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot